9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above clause by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 1st April, 2017, having the resultant effect that such provisions never existed. As there is no requirement of or applicability of transfer pricing provisions to the specified domestic transactions of the assessee covered u/s 92BA (i) of the act , consequently there cannot be any requirement of maintenance of the document. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized under Section 271G of the Act. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the penalty levied under Section 271G of the Act. Mere deletion of adjustment of transfer pricing cannot automatically result into deletion of penalty for non-maintenance of documents , but in this case, there is no requirement of maintena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271G stating that Hon'ble ITAT has held that no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made in the hands of the assessee on account of ALP of specified domestic transaction as section 92BA(i) of the Act was omitted since, therefore provisions of section 92D are not applicable to the facts of the case and thereby erroneously linking levy of penalty u/s 271G with that of TP adjustment for which separate penalty is provided for? 03. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in grey fabric, recycled polyester yarn and other allied products. The assessee is a trader, who filed its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued on 19th March, 2019. The assessee did not comply with the same. Accordingly, notice under Section 271G of the Act was issued which was replied by the assessee on 8th February, 2021. After considering the reply of the assessee, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed the penalty order under Section 271G of the Act on 1st March, 2021, levying penalty of ₹ 4,32,65,819/- being 2% of the value of transaction of SDT of ₹ 216,32,90,959/-. 05. Against this penalty order, assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who deleted the penalty holding that as the ITAT has deleted the addition of the transfer pricing adjustment on judicial ground that clause (i) of Section 92BA, omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 2022, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT Vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. [2020] 114 taxmann.com 568 has held that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment year in view of the omission of the above clause by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 1st April, 2017, having the resultant effect that such provisions never existed. As there is no requirement of or applicability of transfer pricing provisions to the specified domestic transactions of the assessee covered u/s 92BA (i) of the act , consequently there cannot be any requirement of maintenance of the document. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized under Section 271G of the Act. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
